570 réponses à ce sujet

[Mallissin]

Mass Effect 2 didn't accomplish anything for the trilogy?



We learn that the Reapers aren't destroying life without reason, they are seeking something that's inside living beings that are evolving during each cycle.



We learn the Reapers have a continued influence even after we stopped Sovereign (Collectors, Vorcha, Shadow Broker).



We learn Sovereign wasn't left behind on purpose, the Geth aren't a hopeless horde of enemies, and that there are more allies to be had outside the Council.



We learn that Bioware is willing to up the ante. End of ME1, they just tease you with death, while in ME2 it's available and possible. Will they up it again and make death more difficult to avoid in ME3?

[MajorStranger]

ME1 was all about creating a universe and a storyline. ME2 is about expending the universe, see the ugly face of it and preparing for the incoming invasion.



ME3 will be the last part of the series and will bring the full scale invasion by the reapers.



By the way you.re thinking Star Wars episode 5 didn't bring anything to the story. They didn't blew up a death star nor killed one of the major villains. So it must be a filler. Let me tell you something: YOU CAN'T ALWAYS FIGHT THE BIG BOSS! Seriously, The reapers are in between the galaxies, there's no way they could've arrived within two years.

[Yeled]

MajorStranger wrote...

ME1 was all about creating a universe and a storyline. ME2 is about expending the universe, see the ugly face of it and preparing for the incoming invasion.

ME3 will be the last part of the series and will bring the full scale invasion by the reapers.

By the way you.re thinking Star Wars episode 5 didn't bring anything to the story. They didn't blew up a death star nor killed one of the major villains. So it must be a filler. Let me tell you something: YOU CAN'T ALWAYS FIGHT THE BIG BOSS! Seriously, The reapers are in between the galaxies, there's no way they could've arrived within two years.

Right.  They used Empire to develop their main characters introduced in Star Wars A New Hope, and Luke trained in the force, setting up his coming into his own as a jedi when he finally did confront the big boss.

They didn't reboot the series, relagate Han and Leia to cameos, and stick Luke in neutral for the duration.

[Sigma Tauri]

Mallissin wrote...
We learn the
Reapers have a continued influence even after we stopped Sovereign
(Collectors, Vorcha, Shadow Broker).

This is actually one of my favorite implications about the Collectors: the Reapers have their own intelligence network that's as sophisticated (or even moreso) than maybe the Council Spectres, STG, or Cerberus.

MajorStranger wrote...
By the way you.re thinking Star Wars episode 5 didn't bring anything to the story. They didn't blew up a death star nor killed one of the major villains. So it must be a filler. Let me tell you something: YOU CAN'T ALWAYS FIGHT THE BIG BOSS! Seriously, The reapers are in between the galaxies, there's no way they could've arrived within two years.

Right...besides understanding that Luke's victory of destroying the Death Star is not enough to fight the Empire, and then knowing that he's Darth Vader's son, encountering his dark capacities, and eventually being able to be above all that during the final battle is totally just filler.

Seriously, that's like saying people are hitting on Shadows of Amn because they didn't have a Sarevok to kill. We did have powerful people to fight, but that isn't the point that either Shadows of Amn or Empire Strikes Back are trying to make. Both are about the character's need for a game changer and eventually facing something awful about himself.

Unfortunately, Shepard has no characterization that would lead him to discover his own darker aspects. Still, not to hit on ME2, but I'm still looking for an equivalent.

Modifié par monkeycamoran, 15 mars 2010 - 05:20 .

[smudboy]

Arijharn wrote...

Forgive me if I'm acting particularly dense here, but what on Earth are you talking about 'Everything you listed in that paragraph has nothing to do with ME2.' How isn't Thane evolving by reconnecting with his lost son or Grunt finding his identity got nothing to do with ME2? It's making them focus on the mission, and that mission is to take out the Collector's.

Shephard is one man (or woman), he can not do everything just by himself no matter how awesome he is (and lets admit it, (s)he positively 'reeks' of awesome. If they (meaning Shep and his motley crew of heroes) can't deal with Collector's, how on Earth are they going to be able to deal with the Reapers when they turn up?

The side characters have no impact on the main plot, aside from progression whereupon TIM calls you up after you arbitrarily collect them/do their missions.

Thane's (well, all side characters) characterization has nothing to do with stopping the collectors.  They have no motivations to do so.  The fact they're recruited is enough.  Loyalty is just the game translating their characterization into "them not dying/killing someone else in the suicide mission" in some way we don't understand.  Because now they're "focused."

Would a seasoned, super-assassin be distracted in a life and death situation?  By Thane's definition, and what we know of him, not in the slightest.  He's an experienced killing machine who's going to die anyway.  Actually, all of the people are combat specialists.  This "loyalty" concept is just another example of a level designer taking the role of a writer.

By your words alone, Shepard is but one man/woman.  He/she needs people.  But to do what?  Attack the Collectors how?  What is it they'll be attacking?  This isn't explained until they pass through the Omega-4 relay.  They could be collecting explosives or AI combat specialist drones that have daddy issues and it'd be the same thing.

And when we do get there, we go on an infiltration mission where we need 4 roles filled.  These 4 roles make several characters replaceable, and the rest completely useless.

What Fronts? The front where the Reapers are using the Collector's to advance their cause without them actually having to do any of the heavy lifting themselves. Just because the Collector's aren't the Reapers doesn't make them not a threat. It might not be the big threat themselves (incidentally, how would Shephard prepare himself against the Reapers when A) There are no Reapers around and He has precious few allies that he knows about other than perhaps the Illusive Man.

Maybe the focus wasn't on it as much as it should of been, but to me it was pretty clear that you were moving pieces across the board during the events of ME2; whether you were empowering humanity (or Cerberus) by giving them the Collector base or by introducing the cues to gaining allies, it certainly felt as if it was building to something, which is far greater than what Shephard could do solely by himself. I mean, the way you describe it seems to illustrate no hope for Shephard himself, afterall, what can one man do to prevent the destruction of the galaxy as we know it against a race of super-sentinent machine constructs. Well, the answer is 'quite a bit,' even if we don't know the details.

As to the weapon that was originally used to destroy the derelict reaper, the answer is that we do have it. It's called a Mass Accelerator Cannon and every vessel seemingly has one. What we don't have is a weapon of the same scale (because the weapon that destroyed the Reaper would of been collossal, but the mechanics would be pretty much the same), but perhaps the answer is we don't need to have the exact same weapon, afterall the Citadel races have in 11 months duplicated an advanced weapon from the husk of Sovereign and gave it the name of 'Thanix.'

There was no reason why Shepard was in fact brought back.  Miranda could've done the job just fine.

Again, the Collector front: we don't know exactly what this involves, aside from that one ship.  We needed more info into coming up with an attack plan, let alone what we'd find when we got past the Omega-4 relay.  Would this be a ground battle, a space battle across solar systems, a MacGyver escape plan, a war, what?  We simply don't know.

I don't know what pieces you were moving across what board.  The fact that a) everyone can die, the Collector base can be destroyed proves it's entirely moot.

The reality: we're just as screwed as were at the end of ME1.  No progression to fighting the Reapers.  We took out a proxy opponent, just what we were doing at the start of ME2 (the Geth.)  We learn that Reapers are (possibly) organic and machine.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

smudboy wrote...
There is 0 characterization or development of Shepard, our protagonist.  And there should be, if they can do it for 11 other side-characters that are all replaceable or useless to the ME2 plot, they can do it for the character we chose to play (with our 6 different selectable backgrounds.

See, here's where I take issue with your point. In a movie or book, the character in question is entirely in the hands of the director/author. They can choose to make the character however static or dynamic they choose. The same can be said for any non-RPG video game. You are not role-playing 'Master Chief' in Halo; the creators can do whatever they want with the character.

This is not the case with the Mass Effect trilogy. Commander Shepard seems to be a combination of defined traits that apply to every gamer's character, such as being charismatic and dedicated. These are traits which can be equally applied to both Renegade and Paragon characters with little consequence. But the fact remains that Shepard is not entirely 'our character' as in a typical dnd campaign. Bioware has to be cautious in how they choose to alter the Shepard character because (s) he still must possess some degree of free will.

 I would argue that it's impossible for them to effectively develop Shepard in the way that you seem to want. Who's to say that I necessarily want my ruthless Earth-born Shepard to have a major epiphany? The 11 companions that you refer to all have very specific story situations which apply exclusively to them. The 'backgrounds', which were poorly added in ME1 I might add, are too vague to be relevant. Shepard seems designed to be a character who stays true to himself throughout the trilogy, no matter what he is faced with.

The side-characters do develop quite significantly.  However, that and they are not related to the main plot.  It's essentially 11 other stories whose only continuity is (aside from ME1)  "they're on the same ship, and Shepard asked us to come."  A wasted effort.  Thane could've been any other merc, Samara could've been any other Asari (e.g. oh wait ,we can get her daughter!), Grunt, Jack, Zaeed, etc.  In ME1, we had Tali, Liara and Ashley having multiple motivations for trying to save the galaxy, that were all part of the main plot.

You've missed the point here, I'm afraid. They could not have been any other merc...they could only have been themselves. Thane could only have been Thane, Samara only Samara, etc. This was a mission designed with gathering the very best the galaxy had to offer. The Illusive Man identified them, you recruited them. I could have pointed Ashley, who is as much your party member by circumstance as Mordin, and said she is unnecessary.

Your complaint seems tied to the fact that they don't all have some personal motive related to the villain going into this. But as you've pointed out, Saren and the Geth were a well-defined enemy. The same can't be said for the Collectors/Reapers, hence these characters require different motivations. Zaeed is money, Grunt is identity, etc. They also all have a vested interest in not being harvested. So no, they could not have been just 'anyone'. They were the best and they all have a common interest.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 15 mars 2010 - 05:29 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

smudboy wrote...
The reality: we're just as screwed as were at the end of ME1.  No progression to fighting the Reapers.  We took out a proxy opponent, just what we were doing at the start of ME2 (the Geth.)  We learn that Reapers are (possibly) organic and machine.

Hint: Sometimes, learning how something is made can tell you something about how it can be 'unmade'. Seemingly unimportant details are turned into major plot points.

[Arijharn]

smudboy wrote...

Arijharn wrote...

Forgive me if I'm acting particularly dense here, but what on Earth are you talking about 'Everything you listed in that paragraph has nothing to do with ME2.' How isn't Thane evolving by reconnecting with his lost son or Grunt finding his identity got nothing to do with ME2? It's making them focus on the mission, and that mission is to take out the Collector's.

Shephard is one man (or woman), he can not do everything just by himself no matter how awesome he is (and lets admit it, (s)he positively 'reeks' of awesome. If they (meaning Shep and his motley crew of heroes) can't deal with Collector's, how on Earth are they going to be able to deal with the Reapers when they turn up?

The side characters have no impact on the main plot, aside from progression whereupon TIM calls you up after you arbitrarily collect them/do their missions.

Thane's (well, all side characters) characterization has nothing to do with stopping the collectors.  They have no motivations to do so.  The fact they're recruited is enough.  Loyalty is just the game translating their characterization into "them not dying/killing someone else in the suicide mission" in some way we don't understand.  Because now they're "focused."

Would a seasoned, super-assassin be distracted in a life and death situation?  By Thane's definition, and what we know of him, not in the slightest.  He's an experienced killing machine who's going to die anyway.  Actually, all of the people are combat specialists.  This "loyalty" concept is just another example of a level designer taking the role of a writer.

By your words alone, Shepard is but one man/woman.  He/she needs people.  But to do what?  Attack the Collectors how?  What is it they'll be attacking?  This isn't explained until they pass through the Omega-4 relay.  They could be collecting explosives or AI combat specialist drones that have daddy issues and it'd be the same thing.

And when we do get there, we go on an infiltration mission where we need 4 roles filled.  These 4 roles make several characters replaceable, and the rest completely useless.

The side characters do have a major implication for the main plot; they determine whether you survive or not (and it is further determined by how 'loyal' they are). Try taking two non-loyal members with you when you fight the Human-Reaper and see the results. Is this optimal? Honestly, no, I don't think so, but it's present. We can literally argue to one of us dies on this point however (well, until at least frustration forces one to bow out, but you get my drift I hope). I can see your point that the characters don't directly matter (in and of themselves) but they matter in the sense that they affect your chances of seeing it to the end.

While I agree with your basic point that we don't know exactly what we're fighting until our band of heroes actually arrive, it was mentioned way back when you escaped the Collector Ship that it was in the galactic core, which means there are no planets but massive gravity effects thus ruling out planets (I suppose you could, if you wanted to; argue for Mass Effect fields stabilizing an 'escaped' planet into the galactic plane). The other side is that there weren't really anything else that they could do, everyone who would join you had, and everyone was ready. No one wants to die, but for whatever their reason (personal glory, credits, whatever) they were ready to meet the threat.

On the flip side; while I enjoyed the character growth of the loyalty missions, it did seem unprofessional for someone like Thane to let personal distractions interfere with his job, but then again perhaps it was this coupled with his impending mortality that was the catalyst.

smudboy wrote...

What Fronts? The front where the Reapers are using the Collector's to advance their cause without them actually having to do any of the heavy lifting themselves. Just because the Collector's aren't the Reapers doesn't make them not a threat. It might not be the big threat themselves (incidentally, how would Shephard prepare himself against the Reapers when A) There are no Reapers around and He has precious few allies that he knows about other than perhaps the Illusive Man.

Maybe the focus wasn't on it as much as it should of been, but to me it was pretty clear that you were moving pieces across the board during the events of ME2; whether you were empowering humanity (or Cerberus) by giving them the Collector base or by introducing the cues to gaining allies, it certainly felt as if it was building to something, which is far greater than what Shephard could do solely by himself. I mean, the way you describe it seems to illustrate no hope for Shephard himself, afterall, what can one man do to prevent the destruction of the galaxy as we know it against a race of super-sentinent machine constructs. Well, the answer is 'quite a bit,' even if we don't know the details.

As to the weapon that was originally used to destroy the derelict reaper, the answer is that we do have it. It's called a Mass Accelerator Cannon and every vessel seemingly has one. What we don't have is a weapon of the same scale (because the weapon that destroyed the Reaper would of been collossal, but the mechanics would be pretty much the same), but perhaps the answer is we don't need to have the exact same weapon, afterall the Citadel races have in 11 months duplicated an advanced weapon from the husk of Sovereign and gave it the name of 'Thanix.'

There was no reason why Shepard was in fact brought back.  Miranda could've done the job just fine.

Again, the Collector front: we don't know exactly what this involves, aside from that one ship.  We needed more info into coming up with an attack plan, let alone what we'd find when we got past the Omega-4 relay.  Would this be a ground battle, a space battle across solar systems, a MacGyver escape plan, a war, what?  We simply don't know.

I don't know what pieces you were moving across what board.  The fact that a) everyone can die, the Collector base can be destroyed proves it's entirely moot.

The reality: we're just as screwed as were at the end of ME1.  No progression to fighting the Reapers.  We took out a proxy opponent, just what we were doing at the start of ME2 (the Geth.)  We learn that Reapers are (possibly) organic and machine.

Actually, I thought it was pretty well implied that the others (with the possible exception of Jacob) didn't like Miranda or respected her. Particularly Jack. Jacob also mentions when you talk to him that he understood the risks that the mission represented and the need for everyone to be mentally prepared (or words to that effect; something about playing nice? can't totally recall, he mentions it relatively early and I think it was close to the 'Cerberus has no rules against fraternization' line). In addition, Miranda herself mentions that she doesn't have the 'same fire as you do, the one that makes people want to follow you into hell itself.' If you imported a ME1 save, both Tali and Garrus alludes to the questline UNC: Hades' Dogs and mention: "remember, Cerberus were the ones who thought experimenting on Husks and Thorian creepers was a good idea." It makes sense that that sort of pessimism would continue at least somewhat to mirror the actual Cerberus operatives in charge (particularly Miranda) even if such actions weren't in line with a professional motivation.

Also Tali has another reason to be mistrustful of Miranda due to Cerberus' past with the Migrant Fleet. This was the focus of one of the books, but I think too much of ME2 is tied up with plotlines of the books, but that's another gripe.

As to the Collector front; I do agree with you on principle. The only reason you know you wouldn't be fighting a large force (as in something like a planetary defence force) is because:
A) It's in the galactic core; a known region that is full of 'exploding suns and black holes.' This sort of narrows it down to space stations considering Shephard's (and not our own) knowledge of the sort of environments the core has.
 Meta-game knowledge: imagine the sense of anger players would have if they jumped out of the Omega-4 relay smack bang into a middle of the Reaper armada. It would be rather anti-climatic personally. As such, you knew what sort of manner the suicide mission would be. Of course, this makes the storyline somewhat disappointing, but I never contended that it was perfect or plausible, I just disagreed with your assertion that the characters didn't matter.

As to the 'pieces moving across the board,' I was referring to the alliances you (could) of been forging, either through massive technical advantages caused by a pro-humanist feeding Cerberus with juicy advancements or by forging alliances/pacts with the Quarians, or Geth, or Krogan, Rachni or even whether you agreed to becoming a Spectre again, all of these could happen regardless of your outcome, whether your companions died or not, or whether you saved the base... or even a blend between them.

As to your last point, I agree with a caveat. We aren't totally back to square one though because we have deprived the Reapers of two ally's; the Collectors and the Geth (whether you rewrote them or exterminated them). However, it was somewhat frustrating that we didn't advance meaningfully with the Reapers (so we learnt they were made using a bio-metal alloy... so what?!). As to whether depriving the Reapers of their alliances means anything, well, we'll just have to wait and see.

[Terraneaux]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

See, here's where I take issue with your point. In a movie or book, the character in question is entirely in the hands of the director/author. They can choose to make the character however static or dynamic they choose. The same can be said for any non-RPG video game. You are not role-playing 'Master Chief' in Halo; the creators can do whatever they want with the character.

This is not the case with the Mass Effect trilogy. Commander Shepard seems to be a combination of defined traits that apply to every gamer's character, such as being charismatic and dedicated. These are traits which can be equally applied to both Renegade and Paragon characters with little consequence. But the fact remains that Shepard is not entirely 'our character' as in a typical dnd campaign. Bioware has to be cautious in how they choose to alter the Shepard character because (s) he still must possess some degree of free will.

Essentially you're saying that Shepard can't be characterized.  That's silly; there's plenty of other games where you the player can make choices about the emotional state of the character.  They're called computer role-playing games.  You can always have a conversation wheel option where a teammate asks you how you're doing and there's like the 'I could use a hug' option, the 'Gotta suck it up and complete the mission' option, and the 'I have an unfeeling heart of stone' option.  It'd be really nice to have that kind of ability to effect the emotional state of the main character.  Remember the scene in ME1 where the Council has locked down your ship and your LI cheers you up?  More of stuff like that.  

[DarthRic]

Weiser_Cain wrote...

I got together with Tali. That should be the tagline.

Back to your thread Talimancer, shoo shoo

[spryforadeadguy]

I have to agree with the notion that Shepard seems to be laying the groundwork for future alliances in ME2. I could easily see him pulling/being given resources from the quarians or the geth (or both) in the next game. If I were so inclined, I could probably find some more possible allegiances in the works based on choices made.



Of course, this is all just speculation. For all I know, I simply want to believe it. ("Ah, yes, 'choices'; the radical notion that a player can affect both his avatar and the world therein in significant ways. We have dismissed this claim.") In any case, these wild speculations aren't evidence enough to prove the significance of ME2's plot. Personally, I'm not convinced one way or the other entirely; I lean towards thinking it had just enough new information and plot development to warrant not being discarded completely, but there is a certain emptiness about it, as well.

[Knoll Argonar]

spryforadeadguy wrote...

I have to agree with the notion that Shepard seems to be laying the groundwork for future alliances in ME2. I could easily see him pulling/being given resources from the quarians or the geth (or both) in the next game. If I were so inclined, I could probably find some more possible allegiances in the works based on choices made.

Of course, this is all just speculation. For all I know, I simply want to believe it. ("Ah, yes, 'choices'; the radical notion that a player can affect both his avatar and the world therein in significant ways. We have dismissed this claim.") In any case, these wild speculations aren't evidence enough to prove the significance of ME2's plot. Personally, I'm not convinced one way or the other entirely; I lean towards thinking it had just enough new information and plot development to warrant not being discarded completely, but there is a certain emptiness about it, as well.

Agreed. Speculation.

[redguppie]

We won't really know what impact it actually has on the overall story until the final chapter comes out. Traditionally though the second part of a trilogy is used to build up secondary plots and flesh out the universe of whichever story it takes place in.



Character development is also a big deal in the middle section as well as introducing future plot devices that will have an impact on the ending itself.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Terraneaux wrote...
Essentially you're saying that Shepard can't be characterized.  That's silly; there's plenty of other games where you the player can make choices about the emotional state of the character.  They're called computer role-playing games.  You can always have a conversation wheel option where a teammate asks you how you're doing and there's like the 'I could use a hug' option, the 'Gotta suck it up and complete the mission' option, and the 'I have an unfeeling heart of stone' option.  It'd be really nice to have that kind of ability to effect the emotional state of the main character.  Remember the scene in ME1 where the Council has locked down your ship and your LI cheers you up?  More of stuff like that.  

Read the post more carefully. It's not that he can't be characterized; it's that his ability to function as a dynamic character functions much less than companions, whose backgrounds are fully defined. Shepard has characteristics that are common across every gamer's character. He also has certain traits that you develop as your personal playthrough. What Shepard will not have is a major catharsis that completely rewrites the way he views the world. It doesn't work within the confines of the game.

I've played every Rpg Bioware has ever released except for Baldur's Gate. And they've all had those 'emotional moments' that you're referring to and rarely do they amount more to a chance to flirt or get with your party member. This lack of characterization goes even to more traditional rpgs like Dragon Age. Alistair was by far the easiest party for me to empathize with, much more than my own character whose lack of spoken dialogue removed much of the 'oomph'. Seeing the words versus hearing the words is one element that strengths ME1/ME2 over other crpgs.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 15 mars 2010 - 01:50 .

[KnotEngaged]

smudboy wrote...

KnotEngaged wrote...

This is the problem that the 2nd entry in any trilogy always has to be weary of. Feeling incomplete. You see it all the time in movie trilogies, where the 2nd film feels more like a bridge/set-up for the 3rd film, rather than a stand alone entry. ME2 has this problem, it is dependent on what the 3rd game has in store when it comes to finishing out the story. I enjoy serialized narratives, but it can feel unsatisfying when you don't have the "true ending".

No, no it doesn't.

I refuse to believe "because it's 2 of 3, it will suck" philosophy.  That's like saying "every quest story will end in an anti-climax", or some ridiculous maxim.

ME2 could've felt incredibly engaging, logical, personal and dramatic.  And stood alone, and been a sequel.  But the focus of ME2 was game play and side-characters; not main plot, not ME2 main plot, and definitely not main character development.

You'd have hoped with all these talking heads and voice actors they could still tell a decent story, huh?  (REGARDLESS of it being numbero deuce.)

You've misinterperted my point.  The point isn't that "because it's 2 of 3, it will suck", the point is that because it is 2 of 3 it feels incomplete and doesn't stand on its own as well as the other entires.  Empire Strikes Back, Two Towers, and even The Dark Knight all have this problem.  Does it make them bad films?  Not necessarily, Empire is the best in the Star Wars trilogy for instance.  But that doesn't change the fact that the movie ends feelings like it was just getting started.  Same with ME2, we beat the Collectors and we see the Reapers are coming...and it ends.  The resolution just isn't as strong because they need things to tell in the final entry.

[smudboy]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

See, here's where I take issue with your point. In a movie or book, the character in question is entirely in the hands of the director/author. They can choose to make the character however static or dynamic they choose. The same can be said for any non-RPG video game. You are not role-playing 'Master Chief' in Halo; the creators can do whatever they want with the character.

Yes, but they don't DO anything with Shepard.  He/she is flat and static.  For a protagonist of a plot where 1) he/she gets killed and resurrected and becomes Cyber-Jesus, you'd think he'd/she'd have a few things to say about that, ditto with Liara, 2) where the player can choose two of his/her backstories, 3) the scope of which is a cyclic destruction of all sentient life, 4) Hero of the Citadel, first human Spectre, n) etc., Shepard has the characterization of a piece of cardboard.

This is not the case with the Mass Effect trilogy. Commander Shepard seems to be a combination of defined traits that apply to every gamer's character, such as being charismatic and dedicated. These are traits which can be equally applied to both Renegade and Paragon characters with little consequence. But the fact remains that Shepard is not entirely 'our character' as in a typical dnd campaign. Bioware has to be cautious in how they choose to alter the Shepard character because (s) he still must possess some degree of free will.

I agree.  Shepard is not "our charcter."  He/she is at mercy to the writer.  If by free will you mean dialog options, sure.  Just because this is a video game doesn't mean the character can't grow along the lines you've chosen (background, P/R systems, etc.)  Hell, in the first game he had personal quests regarding his/her backstory.  They weren't anything that I'd call a character arc, but they were something.

As well, arguing with the council about Saren, becoming a Spectre after finding an MP3 file, the attitude toward communication with the Council, the "slump" scene at the weapons locker after getting the Normandy locked down, stealing the Normandy back, hell, even holding his/her side after Sovereign bits crash into the Presidium was minute, but something.

 I would argue that it's impossible for them to effectively develop Shepard in the way that you seem to want. Who's to say that I necessarily want my ruthless Earth-born Shepard to have a major epiphany? The 11 companions that you refer to all have very specific story situations which apply exclusively to them. The 'backgrounds', which were poorly added in ME1 I might add, are too vague to be relevant. Shepard seems designed to be a character who stays true to himself throughout the trilogy, no matter what he is faced with.

Shepard: My shoulder is killing me!  Wtf did Cerberus do to me!  Miranda!
Miranda: Yes Shepard, whats' wrong?
Shepard choices: <flip off at Miranda>, <kindly ask for help>
Miranda: I'm sorry Shepard.  We had to replace some parts.
Shepard choices: <I'm sorry I understand, but the pain is killing me>, <To hell with you trying to play God!  Get out of my life!>

etc.

Something.  ANYTHING.

You've missed the point here, I'm afraid. They could not have been any other merc...they could only have been themselves. Thane could only have been Thane, Samara only Samara, etc. This was a mission designed with gathering the very best the galaxy had to offer. The Illusive Man identified them, you recruited them. I could have pointed Ashley, who is as much your party member by circumstance as Mordin, and said she is unnecessary.

Why couldn't they have been a merc?  (Some were.)

The very best the galaxy has to offer...at what?  Why did TIM identify them?  Again, we need these people to fight some kind of war.  What kind of war?  What are we attacking exactly?  Why do we need an assassin, a Krogan, hell, anyone when we don't know nor have any intel on our goal?

Your complaint seems tied to the fact that they don't all have some personal motive related to the villain going into this. But as you've pointed out, Saren and the Geth were a well-defined enemy. The same can't be said for the Collectors/Reapers, hence these characters require different motivations. Zaeed is money, Grunt is identity, etc. They also all have a vested interest in not being harvested. So no, they could not have been just 'anyone'. They were the best and they all have a common interest.

Motivation would definitely help flesh out the characters, and give them a REASON to be there, aside from Shepard simply asking them, let alone their unknown utility.  It gives them as a sense of reason to exist in the story.  I can understand Tali and Garrus, because they already trust Shepard, (yet I can't understand why we need to make them loyal to him/her, again.)  If they don't have a reason to be there, and it's not explained, then it's purely excess baggage we're dealing with.  BECAUSE WE (barely) KNOW WHY WE HAVE ANYONE!

This is more than just knowing about our enemy, and having an antagonist (though this would help.)  This is knowing wtf the game plan is.  In Guns of Navaone, the object of the story is to blow up the Guns of Navarone.  The Dirty Dozen is basically a hitman squad on German officials.  The Seven Samurai is about defending a village from bandits.  In ME2, we get a team of combat specialists to "Fight the Collectors."

The problem is: 1) where exactly are the Collectors?  We know they're past the Omega-4 relay, but then what? 2) what exactly are we doing?  Are we having a spec ops mission?  Are we bombarding a city, a town, a planet, a solar system? 3) how exactly are we doing 2)?  What does an assassin, a biotic powerhouse, a krogan, etc. going to do on a target we know nothing about, on a mission we don't even know what to do on?  What's the game plan?  Just hit the Omega-4 relay and hope for the best? 4) how many Collectors are there?  Do we just attack the ship that's collecting human colonies?  Do we hang out in the galactic core, looking for more if we find them?  What if we encounter a fleet of them, do we escape?

Essentially, marketing asked development to make some "cool looking characters" so they can do a media blitz in Q4 2009 and Q1 2010.  The visual designers had a field day making characters and doing all this cool looking and sounding stuff.  Level designers went "we can do that", and almost every recruit mission, and almost every loyalty mission is a straight line shooting gallery of death (save Thane's and Samara's.)

There is only explanation (an intro by Miranda) on why we need Mordin: and his defense against swarms is only used as a plot device.  There is some indication that the Collectors were involved with Vorcha on Omega, but that tidbit went ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE.

Don't you think it would've been nice to develop the main plot?  Little tidbits as we go along?  Like, every other story ever told, well?

[smudboy]

Shandepared wrote...
Personally, were I Commander Shepard I'd recruit the team but I'd also ask TIM to fill my cargo-hold with a dozen or so thermonuclear bombs. That way if I find the Collector homeworld I can at least do some damage to it. I mean for all Shepard knew he'd go through and find an entire planet with billions of Collectors and tons of infrastructure on it. How exactly was everyone planning to put their skills to use before they foun the base? Nukes would have been useful regardless of what you found...

Exactly.

[smudboy]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

smudboy wrote...
The reality: we're just as screwed as were at the end of ME1.  No progression to fighting the Reapers.  We took out a proxy opponent, just what we were doing at the start of ME2 (the Geth.)  We learn that Reapers are (possibly) organic and machine.

Hint: Sometimes, learning how something is made can tell you something about how it can be 'unmade'. Seemingly unimportant details are turned into major plot points.

Coaxmetal: Start with a fragment of the enemy. A drop of blood. A crystalised thought. One of their hopes. All of these things tell the way it can die.

I don't know what you're trying to tell me, nor am I arguing, but I just thought that sounded cool.

Modifié par smudboy, 15 mars 2010 - 04:29 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

smudboy wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

smudboy wrote...
The reality: we're just as screwed as were at the end of ME1.  No progression to fighting the Reapers.  We took out a proxy opponent, just what we were doing at the start of ME2 (the Geth.)  We learn that Reapers are (possibly) organic and machine.

Hint: Sometimes, learning how something is made can tell you something about how it can be 'unmade'. Seemingly unimportant details are turned into major plot points.

Coaxmetal: Start with a fragment of the enemy. A drop of blood. A crystalised thought. One of their hopes. All of these things tell the way it can die.

I don't know what you're trying to tell me, nor am I arguing, but I just thought that sounded cool.

I think the point is pretty clear in and of itself. You say that we are no closer to defeating the reapers. We learned some critical information about them in terms of their creations, the Collectors who were once the Protheans and how a Reaper is actually created. Even if it is a tiny detail now it has the potential to be *huge*.

I'm going to use an example regarding Harry Potter to make the point. In the fifth book, there is an extremely tiny detail regarding a silver locket that has absolutely no relevance at that time. That minor point becomes a major plot hook in Book 6. This is why I think it's premature to judge Mass Effect 2 before we've seen 3. This is the first sequel that Bioware's done since Baldur's Gate and their first trilogy. Let's first see what actually comes out before we conclude it's pathetic.

[Multifarious Algorithm]

As a comparative point to: the Klendagon rift - something you don't even see in Mass Effect 1 unless you do that mission with Major Kyle, becomes a major plot point in ME2.

[smudboy]

Arijharn wrote...
The side characters do have a major implication for the main plot; they determine whether you survive or not (and it is further determined by how 'loyal' they are). Try taking two non-loyal members with you when you fight the Human-Reaper and see the results. Is this optimal? Honestly, no, I don't think so, but it's present. We can literally argue to one of us dies on this point however (well, until at least frustration forces one to bow out, but you get my drift I hope). I can see your point that the characters don't directly matter (in and of themselves) but they matter in the sense that they affect your chances of seeing it to the end.

Right, we can make that argument after the fact we knew wtf we were doing, and were up against, and how we were going to do it.  Essentially, Shepard just needs some expendable shock troops.

While I agree with your basic point that we don't know exactly what we're fighting until our band of heroes actually arrive, it was mentioned way back when you escaped the Collector Ship that it was in the galactic core, which means there are no planets but massive gravity effects thus ruling out planets (I suppose you could, if you wanted to; argue for Mass Effect fields stabilizing an 'escaped' planet into the galactic plane). The other side is that there weren't really anything else that they could do, everyone who would join you had, and everyone was ready. No one wants to die, but for whatever their reason (personal glory, credits, whatever) they were ready to meet the threat.

On the flip side; while I enjoyed the character growth of the loyalty missions, it did seem unprofessional for someone like Thane to let personal distractions interfere with his job, but then again perhaps it was this coupled with his impending mortality that was the catalyst.

The galactic core tidbit is mentioned too little too late to explain why we needed to go Pokemon previously.  Nor does it detail what we'll find.  Again, we learn Collectors are Protheans, and they've had 50k years to be changed and develop anyway the Reapers wanted.  Were they just sleeping the entire time?  Looks like it, or else they'd have the largest galactic Reaper-slave-civilization.  But we didn't know that.

Actually, I thought it was pretty well implied that the others (with the possible exception of Jacob) didn't like Miranda or respected her. Particularly Jack. Jacob also mentions when you talk to him that he understood the risks that the mission represented and the need for everyone to be mentally prepared (or words to that effect; something about playing nice? can't totally recall, he mentions it relatively early and I think it was close to the 'Cerberus has no rules against fraternization' line). In addition, Miranda herself mentions that she doesn't have the 'same fire as you do, the one that makes people want to follow you into hell itself.' If you imported a ME1 save, both Tali and Garrus alludes to the questline UNC: Hades' Dogs and mention: "remember, Cerberus were the ones who thought experimenting on Husks and Thorian creepers was a good idea." It makes sense that that sort of pessimism would continue at least somewhat to mirror the actual Cerberus operatives in charge (particularly Miranda) even if such actions weren't in line with a professional motivation.

Considering Tali's only use is 1) tech expert and 2) shielding, Miranda could've gotten any Quarian/engineer.  After 4 billion credits?  Yeah, they could find an armada of engineers to fit that bill to go on a suicide mission.  Maybe another brand new ship and crew to boot...

Also Tali has another reason to be mistrustful of Miranda due to Cerberus' past with the Migrant Fleet. This was the focus of one of the books, but I think too much of ME2 is tied up with plotlines of the books, but that's another gripe.

I try to keep my arguments away from the books as possible.  I haven't read them.  I just don't think one needs supplementary books to explain the relevance of one book, a trilogy, etc.

As to the Collector front; I do agree with you on principle. The only reason you know you wouldn't be fighting a large force (as in something like a planetary defence force) is because:
A) It's in the galactic core; a known region that is full of 'exploding suns and black holes.' This sort of narrows it down to space stations considering Shephard's (and not our own) knowledge of the sort of environments the core has.
 Meta-game knowledge: imagine the sense of anger players would have if they jumped out of the Omega-4 relay smack bang into a middle of the Reaper armada. It would be rather anti-climatic personally. As such, you knew what sort of manner the suicide mission would be. Of course, this makes the storyline somewhat disappointing, but I never contended that it was perfect or plausible, I just disagreed with your assertion that the characters didn't matter.

Again, if A, lob some nukes at it.

If B, YES PLEASE.  Show us the real enemy.  No more 5 second million reapers blacking out the skies.  Give us the real threat.

As to the 'pieces moving across the board,' I was referring to the alliances you (could) of been forging, either through massive technical advantages caused by a pro-humanist feeding Cerberus with juicy advancements or by forging alliances/pacts with the Quarians, or Geth, or Krogan, Rachni or even whether you agreed to becoming a Spectre again, all of these could happen regardless of your outcome, whether your companions died or not, or whether you saved the base... or even a blend between them.

If there was an actual scene where a relationship was formed, then great.  The only one I noticed was with the Rachni, which had occurred in ME1.  Everything else was just talk, or for other purposes.

As to your last point, I agree with a caveat. We aren't totally back to square one though because we have deprived the Reapers of two ally's; the Collectors and the Geth (whether you rewrote them or exterminated them). However, it was somewhat frustrating that we didn't advance meaningfully with the Reapers (so we learnt they were made using a bio-metal alloy... so what?!). As to whether depriving the Reapers of their alliances means anything, well, we'll just have to wait and see.

Right, we decreased their proxies (one which never existed in ME1, and one which never had much of a presence in ME2.  Miranda even makes a snide remark about that in the intro of Shepard fighting Geth.)

For a bridge, as people like to argue, it's not even built up.  The foundation hasn't even been dug.  You can totally skip ME2 and (with the exception of activating Legion/Keeping the base), no big difference, an as such, I'd argue such plot points would have no major influence in ME3.

[Knoll Argonar]

Or even Cerberus itself.



It's there everywhere in ME1, they appear in Noveria, Feros, the Citadel, random planets... but you can get through the game without knowing anything about them. Turns out, ME2 is a critical part of the plot: the only known organization that believe in the Reaper Thread.

[smudboy]

KnotEngaged wrote...
You've misinterperted my point.  The point isn't that "because it's 2 of 3, it will suck", the point is that because it is 2 of 3 it feels incomplete and doesn't stand on its own as well as the other entires.  Empire Strikes Back, Two Towers, and even The Dark Knight all have this problem.  Does it make them bad films?  Not necessarily, Empire is the best in the Star Wars trilogy for instance.  But that doesn't change the fact that the movie ends feelings like it was just getting started.  Same with ME2, we beat the Collectors and we see the Reapers are coming...and it ends.  The resolution just isn't as strong because they need things to tell in the final entry.

Again, that's a poor reason to explain why ME2 is bad.

1) ME2 is not a bridge or sequel to something else.  It merely has 2 in the title.  (argument: Legion/Collector base.)
2) ME2 could have stood JUST FINE by itself, as well as be a bridge.  It could do the former in a mediocre way if it wasn't a sequel, and fails completely in the latter.  It could have been both.  Read any Shannara book by Terry Brooks.  The stories are stand alone, but they happen in a sequence.  Obviously you'll get more out if you started from the first, but each book tells its own story and has characters and settings for continuity.
3) ME2 ends so abruptly because the Suicide Mission was short.  And, you fought a massive baby terminator.  And you escaped all those locked doors and hordes of Collectors by "running away."  The feeling of "ugh" is because of you having to sit through all that awesomeness until you hit the major plot points, the ending of which, where you do something so utterly stupid, undermining the story of the first game, and the logic and intelligence of the super-intelligent machine species.

[smudboy]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
I think the point is pretty clear in and of itself. You say that we are no closer to defeating the reapers. We learned some critical information about them in terms of their creations, the Collectors who were once the Protheans and how a Reaper is actually created. Even if it is a tiny detail now it has the potential to be *huge*.

I'm going to use an example regarding Harry Potter to make the point. In the fifth book, there is an extremely tiny detail regarding a silver locket that has absolutely no relevance at that time. That minor point becomes a major plot hook in Book 6. This is why I think it's premature to judge Mass Effect 2 before we've seen 3. This is the first sequel that Bioware's done since Baldur's Gate and their first trilogy. Let's first see what actually comes out before we conclude it's pathetic.

For one, no one can judge ME2 as a prequel to ME3, yet.

We can, however, judge it as a sequel, and, as a stand alone story, and the merits and faults therein.  Which I've been doing.  In the example of how a Reaper is created: it's hilarious, to borderline retarded to how a "rudimentary creature of blood and flesh" is needed to build a million year old now cybernetic machine.  What possible significance would a genetic soup/graft/thing do (HOW?!) for a machine?  If it's not explained, it has to be labeled as a mystery, and none of this happened.

You can point out potential elements of foreshadowing, and that's fine.  However, those points, don't score any positives for the ME2 story.  They may be potential insights into ME3, but that's it.

Saying ME3 may explain ME2 is an apologists argument, and I'll have none of that rubbish!  None I say!